homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Homosexuality and Christianity (Page 52)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  ...  92  93  94 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059

 - Posted      Profile for ananke   Email ananke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also comparisons to rape and abuse situations are indicative of a lack of understnading that really worries me.

In short:

child: cannot consent due to maturity and age

animal: cannot consent due to intellectual capabilities and species

adult: able to consent thanks to age, intellectual maturity and ability to acknowledge self.

Incestuous relationships are different because there are usually underlaying issues of consent and sexual misconduct.

Connecting homosexuality with any of those things is a great disservice not only to homosexuals but to God.

--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.

A Perfect Circle - Magdalena

Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412

 - Posted      Profile for anglicanrascal   Email anglicanrascal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Yes it's difficult that the Bible allows people to be gay but not participate in homosexual relationships. Similar I imagine to a heterosexual who struggles with lust but is prohibited from adultery ...

Nope, not even close. The heterosexual person still gets to get married and have sex. The homosexual person doesn't get to have sex with anyone.
The heterosexual person may get to get married. If they don't get that opportunity (your post makes it sound like a right, Ruth) they should remain celibate, as non-married homosexuals should be.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588

 - Posted      Profile for The Exegesis Fairy     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Jesus did say that we were to love one another. To love our enemies. Not to judge, because that was up to him.
Amen, APW.

quote:

The heterosexual person may get to get married. If they don't get that opportunity (your post makes it sound like a right, Ruth) they should remain celibate, as non-married homosexuals should be.

Which would be all homosexuals, then, as most churches do not presently allow same-sex marriage?

Hmm. I really dunno about that one, AR.

Paul said, "it is better to be married than to burn with lust"...but...if you don't want to be married to a person of the opposite sex that has you in something of a quandary, doesn't it?

And while celibacy is a gift, IMO (ok, a gift nobody wants, but a gift nonetheless) it's definitely not for everyone, or even most.

--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I think each of these restrictions are actually loving because they help prevent the person from sinning. I guess it depends on your definition of what loving is.

No, it depends on whether homosexual acts are in fact sinful in any and all contexts. If they are, then helping people avoid sinning in this way would be loving. If they aren't, then it's not loving.

I'm not convinced that they are.

Even if they are, I'm not convinced that "helping people stop sinning" in this way can be described as a loving act, until we have stopped sinning against the people we say we're trying to help. It's worse than trying to take the speck out of their eye while we've got a log in our own -- it's more like trying to take the speck out of their eye while we hit them in the gut, stomp on their feet, slap their face, and complain that they won't stand still for us so we can get that speck out.

Look, I'll ask you a question that a gay woman I know well asked me recently. The Bible is at least as clear that adultery and fornication are sinful as it is that homosexual relations are sinful -- probably more clear. Right? So why is it that, when she told her pious, Christian, Bible-believing mother that she was gay, her mother ordered her out of the house, slammed the door in her face, and refused all contact with her for nearly twenty years, while that same pious, Christian, Bible-believing mother (who, btw, was herself divorced and remarried, and whose sister has divorced and remarried three times) -- her mother has never thrown out any of the divorced family members, nor has she thrown out or cut off contact with the family members who have had affairs, or have had children out of wedlock? Why were those sinners welcome in her mother's home, while she was not?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Overused] Josephine [Overused] [Axe murder]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Arabella, I can't answer for all of Christendom but I think that love includes helping prevent sin. Of course we disagree what sin is.

So, you don't visit the prisoner, or feed the hungry? You walk by when someone is hurt? You would ignore need when it is present?

It makes me tired, it really does. On balance, even if my being a lesbian was a sin, which I don't believe for an instant, I try to live my life following the wisdom of Jesus. The balance of the life my partner and I lead is tipped way over towards loving people and helping them become all they can be.

AR, my partner and I just got married, so its OK for us to have sex now, yes? We have the papers and everything...

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ananke made these comments:
quote:
Also comparisons to rape and abuse situations are indicative of a lack of understanding that really worries me.
What did I equate with rape and abuse?

quote:
child: cannot consent due to maturity and age
Some of the ages of consent around the world will shock you. Culturally the sexualisation of children is becoming more acceptable. See for example this movie.


quote:
Incestuous relationships are different because there are usually underlying issues of consent and sexual misconduct.
But how do we know that, some of them might be more loving then a homosexual or heterosexual relationship?

quote:
Connecting homosexuality with any of those things is a great disservice not only to homosexuals but to God.
Doesn’t Leviticus lump all these types of sexual combinations together? Why do we have to make a special distinction between homosexual relationships and these other relationships if Leviticus doesn’t?

josephine asked this question:
quote:
Look, I'll ask you a question that a gay woman I know well asked me recently. ... Why were those sinners welcome in her mother's home, while she was not?
It doesn’t sound like the “pious Christian Bible-believing mother” was very Christian at all. While I have no idea of the individual details of the situation Christians who believe homosexual relationships are a sin should also believe fornication and adultery are sins. The anglican archbishop of Tasmania is a very loving gentle man who has fired priest for committing adultery and prevented practising homosexuals from becoming ordained. In him a see a loving example of how sexual sin should be dealt with.

Arabella, I don't seek to make you tired but just wanted to deabte the topic! Your definition of loving other people is interesting. Jesus often told people off for being sinners but he always did in the context of loving them. The love that Jesus shows and the love we should emulate includes feeding the hungry, telling people about the Kingdom of Heaven and encouraging people towards the truth and away from sin.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Personally I don't give a XXXX what Leviticus says. It thinks the Lord likes having the heads wrung off pigeons, and it worries about whether you should eat a cormorant or an osprey or an ibis, not to mention going on at great lengths about how menstruating women are unclean and how its forbidden to have sex with them. Maybe people should just admit that in moral terms it's mostly Monty Python-style rubbish about animal cruelty and cleansing lepers. Occasionally it manages to say something half-way decent, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but as a basis for modern ethics it's pretty woeful.


As for the usual tired old incest/paedophilia/bestiality shtick, I don't care if the age of consent in Outer Wooloomaloo is two and a half for toddlers and six weeks for sheep, that has nothing to do with whether it's right for two adult gay people to be together. Similarly if people want to have carnal knowledge of their relatives or their household pets or the nearest potplant, I might find that terribly shocking, I might not, it's still got no bearing on whether gay relationships are good, bad or indifferent. It's irrelevant. Each sort of relationship needs to be judged on its separate merits.

L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Jesus often told people off for being sinners but he always did in the context of loving them.

Actually the people he told off the most were those who tried to micromanage other people's moral lives. Hmmmm. Lesson there?

Not much love either in the "Alas for you, lawyers and pharisees, hypocrites!" passage -- not that I can see.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Louise [Killing me]

I do enjoy your contributions, specially when you're annoyed at crass generalisations. Next time we're in Scotland...

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
It doesn’t sound like the “pious Christian Bible-believing mother” was very Christian at all. While I have no idea of the individual details of the situation Christians who believe homosexual relationships are a sin should also believe fornication and adultery are sins.

Exactly. But should they be thrown out of their homes? Should their families disown them and disinherit them, should people hold them up for public ridicule and contempt, saying that by doing so they are keeping them from sin, in Christian love, of course?

My friend's mother believes that adultery and fornication are sins. But she doesn't treat the adulterers and fornicators she knows the way she treated her own daughter. Somehow, gay is different. Why is that, Luke?

Let me ask you something. Do you actually know any homosexual people? If you do, and if they're willing to talk to you, ask them about their experiences with professing Christians. They may not be willing to talk to you -- many gays and lesbians, perhaps most, have been so hurt in their interactions with Christians that they may not be willing to have anything to do with you. But if they're willing to talk, accept that as a gift, keep your mouth shut, and listen.

You will hear stories about Christian young people who, when they asked a pastor how to deal with their feelings towards others of the same sex, were told they were going to hell and were kicked out of their Christian youth group. And somehow their request for pastoral advice was disseminated to all the young people in the Church, who started taunting them at school and telling them they were going to hell.

You will hear stories about college students who couldn't figure out how they were going to finish their education -- or how they were going to pay their rent or buy food -- after their Christian parents found out they were gay and cut off all funding.

You will hear stories about teens who ended up sleeping under overpasses because their Christian parents threw them out.

You will hear stories about women who were gang raped by Christian men to prove to the women that they really are heterosexual.

You'll hear stories about people who killed themselves, hoping in that way to end their pain and maybe, just maybe, to appease the God that every Christian they knew had told them hated them because they couldn't help fancying someone of the same sex.

When you know who they are, beyond their sexual orientation, when you know what they've been through, and why, when you actually love them as human beings, and are willing to defend them when they are sinned against, then maybe, just maybe, the time will be right to help them avoid sinning.

Until then, you don't know them, you don't love them, and any protestations to the contrary are so much hot air.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Overused]

Josephine, you're wonderful!

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Righteous Rebel:
I am a homosexual Christian; some folks think that term is non-existent. But there are those of us out here who truly do love God and do our best to serve Him, albeit, not usually in an organized church (at least not in my case). If one takes a look at church history, one will find all sorts of things the Church taught in earlier times: discouraging bathing, because nakedness was a sin; not walking under a ladder, because a ladder propped against a wall formed a triangle, which represented the Trinity. Therefore it was blasphemous to walk under a ladder. There are several other, equally ignorant, if not downright stupid teachings the Church has espoused down through the time, and new ones seem to be cropping up all the time.

Hmmm.

I'm not sure that this analogy works. There's a big difference between something being the opinion of people in the Church and it being the teaching of the Church. Was there ever any official teaching of the Church that said any of the things above or did they just come into popular understanding as these things are won't to do? Just because every member of the Synod of Bishops goes to Tesco to buy Spam because they all hate corned beef doesn't mean that the Church teaches that corned beef is of the devil.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Personally I don't give a XXXX what Leviticus says.
Yes there are two approaches here, arguing that Leviticus is inspired but we have interrupted it wrongly or saying Leviticus is just a broken clock.


Josphine, this is a forum with lots of opinions flying around. You’ve dismissed whatever I’m going to say as hot air anyway so I might as well as plough on. Josphine, why turn this away from the theological justification of homosexual relationships into a slanging match based on how many homosexual friends I have or how persecuted practising homosexuals are? As you have already pointed out the practical realities of struggling with homosexuality are tough, so for me to reveal personal information about homosexual friends on a public forum that could be identifiable is crass. You don’t know what my sexuality is and I havn’t asked for the sexuality of anyone else. Why can’t the debate remain theological and for all intents and purposes theoretical! It seems we have ruffled the feathers of each other. Please indicate to me (via PM) if I have hurt you, becuase this like all important topics often strikes a personal cord.

I’m interested in what historical Christian theology has taught over the centuries, I’d also like to know if there is a Biblical case for homosexual relationships as a good thing. Related to that question is what Jesus had to say about it all and can what he said be construed as supporting homosexual relationships.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37

 - Posted      Profile for Paul.   Author's homepage   Email Paul.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Why can’t the debate remain theological and for all intents and purposes theoretical!

Because it's not theoretical. What Christians believe and Churches teach affects real people in real ways. Read this thread from the beginning and you'll see lots of examples of how. Many of them first hand.

I'm very very wary of any theology that doesn't take into account people's real life experiences, much less contradict it, as sadly many people's interpretation of what "historical Christian theology has taught over the centuries" does.

Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Luke, Josephine has made an absolutely relevant post, as did Louise. There is no theology devoid of experience.

The way you post sounds very like many of the people who have been condemnatory in my life. The relevance of Josephine's post is that many people who hold this anti-gay view behave in most un-christian ways, and are supported by their church in doing so. Like Louise, I don't care what Leviticus says. Jesus tells us in Mark 12:28-34:
quote:
One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your strenth.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." Then the scribe said to him, "you are right, Teacher; you have truly said that 'he is one, and besides him there is no other'; and 'to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,' and 'to love one's neighbour as oneself,' - this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that no one dared to ask him any question.
Many people forget that Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18 here. This is the law of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the word of Jesus. It is the ultimate statement of the law on which all other parts of the law rest. Jesus places love above the practices of the established church of his day. Crucially, he states There is no other commandment greater than these.

This passage is a great strength for me, along with Romans 8:31-39. As a principle it overrides everything short of Jesus dying on the cross. It is certainly the principle that I try and live by. I only wish that it was the only part of the bible that survived - imagine a church where love for your neighbour really was the guiding principle!

Take it from one who has been there, Luke. It doesn't feel like love when you're on the receiving end of anti-gay pronouncements. Most of the time it feels like pure unadulterated hatred. And why concentrate on that one thing? Why not acknowledge that I am a full human being, someone who is doing her best to live out a Christian life, trying to display the fruits of the Spirit? By focussing on this one thing, churches are stopping a lot of good people from getting on with their lives.

For many years I counselled lesbians and gay men coming out from conservative Christian churches. They never seem to be able to get past the big stick-wielding God to a God that loves them. Usually it means that they toss out the baby with the bathwater and dismiss God as merely a sadist and the church as the dominatrix authorised by God. And they leave. Its the only way they can deal with it.

I don't believe in that God, and I never have. Loving God is hard, as hard as the nails on the cross. But I don't believe that God wants me to waste time trying to be something I'm not. Sex just isn't that important in terms of a whole life.

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Josphine, why turn this away from the theological justification of homosexual relationships into a slanging match based on how many homosexual friends I have or how persecuted practising homosexuals are? <snip> Why can’t the debate remain theological and for all intents and purposes theoretical!



Because the experiences of homosexual people are not theological and theoretical. They are real. So any theory, any theology, is going to have to take those very real people, and their very real experiences, into account.

If you want to start from the a priori position that homosexuality is sinful, and then ask, "Given that, what is the best way to love homosexual people," I'm willing to have that discussion. I'll concede, for the sake of the discussion, that homosexuality is sinful. Now, given that, what is the best way to love homosexual people?

Tell me that, then tell me the best way to love fornicators, and the best way to love gluttons.

quote:
Related to that question is what Jesus had to say about it all and can what he said be construed as supporting homosexual relationships.
Jesus didn't say a single word about homosexuality. Not one.

[ 25. September 2005, 00:48: Message edited by: josephine ]

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412

 - Posted      Profile for anglicanrascal   Email anglicanrascal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
The way you post sounds very like many of the people who have been condemnatory in my life. The relevance of Josephine's post is that many people who hold this anti-gay view behave in most un-christian ways, and are supported by their church in doing so.

...

Take it from one who has been there, Luke. It doesn't feel like love when you're on the receiving end of anti-gay pronouncements. Most of the time it feels like pure unadulterated hatred. And why concentrate on that one thing? Why not acknowledge that I am a full human being, someone who is doing her best to live out a Christian life, trying to display the fruits of the Spirit? By focussing on this one thing, churches are stopping a lot of good people from getting on with their lives.

Hi APW,

do you think that it is possible for people who believe that homosexual practice is wrong to present it in a way that is not condemnatory and sounding like unadulterated hatred? (Can I just state that I would never belong to a church that I knew treated homosexuals or anyone else like that.) I wonder if you think there is a way that Christians could say that they believe being sexually active with a same-sex partner is wrong without it coming across as hating the sinner?

Do you think that if someone you were counselling was behaving in a way that you considered could put them in mortal spiritual danger, you could communicate it without them thinking you hated them? Or is there so much baggage with this issue no matter how the church presents it, they are going to be waving the big stick (or the big leather whip, according to your metaphor!)?

Pax,
ar

Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I wonder if you think there is a way that Christians could say that they believe being sexually active with a same-sex partner is wrong without it coming across as hating the sinner?

I'm not Arabella, but I think it's possible, if three conditions are met.

First, it has to be a gay or lesbian person with whom you already have a deep and trusting relationship. Someone who already knows that you love them and would go to the ends of the earth for them. Maybe a sibling. Maybe someone who has been your best friend for a dozen years. I don't think it can ever come across well if you're talking to a casual acquaintance or a stranger.

Second, that person has to have asked your opinion. If they know you well, and ask, I think the relationship obliges you to answer honestly. If you volunteer your opinion without having been asked, though, then I think it's always going to come across as hateful.

Third, when you are asked, and you answer, I think you have to make it clear that sexual activity with a same-sex partner is no more sinful than the sins you commit -- gossip, or gluttony, or whatever. It's not like they sin and you don't. If you make it clear that you believe that you also sin, and that you don't believe their sins are worse than yours, if they already trust you, they may well believe you.

But if you don't believe that, you probably should avoid the conversation.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Josephine is, I think, correct. However, I have not yet experienced such a conversation. I think if the person held such strong views then any proper friendship might be extremely unlikely. For a start, getting to know someone to the point where you could fulfil Josephine's criteria might take years, and my experience of those who think my soul is in mortal danger tells me they wouldn't wait that long.

My partner was part of a national church committee considering homosexuality and the church. For three years she met with a group of 7 others. At the beginning there were three pro-gay, three anti-gay, one who was truly in the middle, and Rosie. The others were all heterosexual. They spent two of those years travelling around the country hearing from all sorts of church people, queer and straight.

After three years, the middle sitter had moved to the pro camp, two of the anti-gay people on the committee had changed over, and it appeared that the third had as well. He had certainly been friendly. However, on the very last day of deliberations, when they were finalising their report, he suddenly declared that he couldn't agree with the conclusions and that homosexuality was a disorder and a sin. He said that he wouldn't want Rosie in his church and certainly not as a leader.

Now, imagine it. You have been working for three years with someone who you thought respected you and who you had come to like and respect. Then he comes out with something that makes it perfectly clear that it has all been an act, and that, in fact, he despises you.

That's the kind of thing that makes me unlikely to believe Josephine's conditions can be met. I simply no longer trust smiling church people who profess love for me out one side of their mouths and contempt out the other.

The only people I think I would ever even allow to start having such a conversation are members of my family. They're the only people who know me well enough, and actually, they wouldn't because they know who I am.

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899

 - Posted      Profile for Ginga     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

do you think that it is possible for people who believe that homosexual practice is wrong to present it in a way that is not condemnatory and sounding like unadulterated hatred? (Can I just state that I would never belong to a church that I knew treated homosexuals or anyone else like that.) I wonder if you think there is a way that Christians could say that they believe being sexually active with a same-sex partner is wrong without it coming across as hating the sinner?

The overwhelming liklihood is that any gay person in a country with a lot of Christianity around is well aware that some people think they're sinning.

If they're a Christian, they've probably been struggling with it for ages, or have already resolved it, one way or the other (ie, choosing celibacy). Unless you've got something staggeringly original to say, you probably won't be presenting any point of view they haven't already considered.

If they're not a Christian then a) you're just going to add to the weight of evidence against religious people generally, which helps no-one; and b) surely the lack of faith in Jesus would be more concerning to you? Once they've got that, they could then interpret their sexuality through the eyes of that faith and then make a choice regarding it.

So, all in all, there is nothing to be gained from the conversation, and a lot to lose. That's assuming Josphine's Conditions have not been met, of course. If they have, then it's just a conversation between friends, and it should be relatively easy to get through should you absolutely have to discuss it.

At the risk of copying a recent purg thread, the only possible conclusion is: Why do you have to say anything at all?


[edited for code reasons]

[ 25. September 2005, 03:04: Message edited by: Ginga ]

Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412

 - Posted      Profile for anglicanrascal   Email anglicanrascal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
At the risk of copying a recent purg thread, the only possible conclusion is: Why do you have to say anything at all?

Personally, I wouldn't. But I was trying to work out how APW would expect a church leader who seriously thought that someone was doing something wrong to raise the matter. I believe that it would be the responsibility of a church leader to shepherd God's flock and to correct those who are in serious moral danger. I think that has to be done lovingly, with deep care and concern, and in a spirit of humility. But from APW's post, it doesn't seem like even that would be good enough. That's why I asked how APW would raise something like that with someone if that was her responsibility. I would agree that homosexual sin is far from the greatest sin in the Bible, but although everyone's willing to say that (if it's a sin) it's a sin just like all others, it seems like it's the one sin that can't be raised with the people committing it (I'm getting that more from APW than from josephine, I think).

Maybe I wasn't clear that I was asking from the perspective of those whose responsibility it is to raise such matters. If so, I apologise. Josephine, can I ask with your three pointers on how such a matter can be raised - if that would be different from a priest's situation, bearing in mind his responsibility before God, or would you prefer not to comment on something like that?

Pax,
ar

[ 25. September 2005, 04:09: Message edited by: anglicanrascal ]

Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by arabella:
quote:
Like Louise, I don't care what Leviticus says. Jesus tells us in Mark 12:28-34:
...
Many people forget that Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18 here.

Jesus must of cared for Leviticus if he quoted it!

quote:
Jesus didn't say a single word about homosexuality. Not one.
But thats a poor argument. Why didn’t Jesus condemn the Roman Empire or instruct people to free their slaves or talk about debt relief or technology? Just because he didn’t say a single word doesn’t mean he didn’t have indirect comments to make or principles for us to apply.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Just because he didn’t say a single word doesn’t mean he didn’t have indirect comments to make or principles for us to apply.

You mean like, "Judge not, lest ye be judged. For with the measure ye mete, so shall it be meted unto thee."?

[ 25. September 2005, 05:09: Message edited by: Mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are you being judgemental Mousetheif? Or does that verse only apply to people who think homosexual relationships are a sin? [Big Grin]

[ 25. September 2005, 05:56: Message edited by: Luke ]

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899

 - Posted      Profile for Ginga     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
[Maybe I wasn't clear that I was asking from the perspective of those whose responsibility it is to raise such matters.

I think you were. I think I got a bit carried away. Sorry.

From my perspective, all else being equal it would be just as appropriate to discuss homosexual activity as it would be to discuss any other sin. The problem is that some sins carry a ton more baggage than others, and getting around that baggage is nearly impossible.

So I'd stick to 'don't mention it', but then maybe that's why I'm never given any positions of responsibility [Biased]

Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's all very well AR, but where are the Christian leaders fulminating about the sin of laying up treasures for yourself on earth? I remember reading somewhere that the poorest member of President Bush's cabinet is Condoleeza Rice, who is a multimillionaire.

Personally I think that's a sin. I believe it wholeheartedly. There's clear evidence in the gospels for it being a sin. So where is Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, or the Pope? Oh, I forgot, they're all rolling in it, too.

So, if your sin is a minority one, like being gay, then you can be persecuted by all and sundry. But if your sin is one that the world approves of, like greed, then what-the-hell, it isn't really worth worrying about? If I go to raise that sin with a sinner, I'll be laughed out of town.

So, what's so special about homosexuality then? Why should you be allowed to raise that one when I'm not allowed to raise gossip, greed, powermongering, treating others with contempt, vanity... Vanity, now there's another excellent one. Television portrays an image of humanity which is hardly godly and based on the most surface of traits - reality television, anyone? There are a few nutters like me who protest, but I forgot, I'm gay so it doesn't count.

AR, I believe very strongly that the church is a poisonous place for gay and lesbian people. You will never get me to agree that being queer is a sin, therefore I will never agree that it can be brought up in any way other than to support the queer person as they come out. One of the saddest things for me when I was actively involved in counselling people coming out of conservative churches was that many of the men would actively pursue a dangerously promiscuous lifestyle - simply because they thought that was all that was allowed to them BECAUSE THEIR CHURCH HAD TOLD THEM SO (yes, I am shouting). The church created their danger because it showed them nothing positive about being gay. They lived with that sadistic God and the dominatrix church on their shoulders, and it was difficult to pursuade them that they could live any other way. They were convinced they were going to hell, so they might as well deserve it. As you can probably tell, it made me furious every time. Fortunately, they usually settled down after a few months.

That's why you shouldn't say anything if you can't say something positive. (Dear God, now I'm channelling my Dad).

Luke, what Jesus is drawing attention to is that the scribes were hung up on the rest of Leviticus, the jots and tittles of the law. He draws attention to the real principle behind the law. The principle doesn't need to be tied to individual laws as is seen by the fact that the old laws are washed away by the death of Jesus. My personal take on it is that the church is also hung up on the law and forgetting the principle.

For the moment this is the last thing I intend to write on this subject. Before I read this thread I was reading the one in Purg about the Catholic Church's banning of men who have a gay orientation from the priesthood. My temper is about to go through the ceiling. I will leave it to the excellent RainbowKate, Coot, Josephine and Louise, should they so desire.

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Luke, what Jesus is drawing attention to is that the scribes were hung up on the rest of Leviticus, the jots and tittles of the law.

But didn't Jesus say "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
For many years I counselled lesbians and gay men coming out from conservative Christian churches. They never seem to be able to get past the big stick-wielding God to a God that loves them. Usually it means that they toss out the baby with the bathwater and dismiss God as merely a sadist and the church as the dominatrix authorised by God. And they leave. Its the only way they can deal with it.

I too have counselled GBT people and found the same 'results'. I advise those seeking a spirituality to explore Buddhism as Christianity is too toxic.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Maybe I wasn't clear that I was asking from the perspective of those whose responsibility it is to raise such matters. If so, I apologise. Josephine, can I ask with your three pointers on how such a matter can be raised - if that would be different from a priest's situation, bearing in mind his responsibility before God, or would you prefer not to comment on something like that?

Sorry, AR, I didn't realize you were talking about what clergy should do. Since I'm not clergy, I don't really feel competent to say anything about that.

Except ... okay, I will say something about it. I do think clergy who believe that homosexual relations are sinful should never, ever bring it up from the pulpit. Since that is a sin, if it is a sin, that no one who is not homosexual is ever tempted to, and since statistically darned few people in the congregation are likely to be gay, the only thing accomplished by preaching about it from the pulpit is stirring up ill will against gay people.

So any discussion of homosexuality should be in private conversations with those individuals for whom it is a temptation. Even there, I think the priest or pastor should do more listening than talking, and should make it very clear that homosexual relations are no more sinful than any other sin that he and the rest of the congregation commit every day. As I said before, it's not like homosexual relations are sinful and gossip isn't.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Luke, you may have missed this in my earlier post:

quote:
If you want to start from the a priori position that homosexuality is sinful, and then ask, "Given that, what is the best way to love homosexual people," I'm willing to have that discussion. I'll concede, for the sake of the discussion, that homosexuality is sinful. Now, given that, what is the best way to love homosexual people?

Tell me that, then tell me the best way to love fornicators, and the best way to love gluttons.

Are you willing to do that? Do you think quoting Leviticus at people you barely know is the best way to love them? Or is there something else you think would be more appropriate?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Luke, what Jesus is drawing attention to is that the scribes were hung up on the rest of Leviticus, the jots and tittles of the law.

But didn't Jesus say "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Actually those who followed Jesus did abolish most of these odd purity laws. People felt able to re-examine them in the light of his witness and tossed whole sections of them overboard, including sexual ones. If you're any doubt about that, consider whether your church bans sex with a menstruating woman or when your priest last talked to you about your sexual 'emissions' making you unclean. (Menstruation as unclean gets a whacking 12 verses to itself in Leviticus - yet this has been quietly dropped by most sane people).

Inconvenient, cruel, silly or sexually embarrassing stuff for ourselves tends to get dropped, yet the bits of bizarre bronze-age purity laws which wreck the lives of gay people are to be kept at all costs, isn't that a bit odd? (Reminds me rather a lot of the wicked servant in Matthew 18, his Lord relieved his burden, yet he demanded that his fellow servant still had to pay in full.)

Even with those few things which do still get applied to heterosexual people, the big one in Old Testament terms is adultery, but I have never ever heard adultery condemned or discussed in the same breath as paedophilia and bestiality. Likewise a fair number of people here have argued that sex outside of marriage isn't a sin, yet I've never ever seen paedophilia or bestiality or incest dragged into discussion on a thread about it. Yet I observe the phenomenon that every few months somebody new comes on board and starts on the theme of paedophilia/bestiality/incest in a discussion on a thread about gay relationships. I find that very revealing. Like Arabella, it is something which has worn my patience thin to the point of snapping, which probably was evident in my previous reply to you.

I see it like this: people come here, onto a board where it's rapidly obvious that there are a number of gay people who are part of the community, and they think it's OK to start debating their relationships in terms of raping children or fucking animals. To me it's like watching someone walk into a party with a number of black guests and start loudly talking about 'niggers' and what's wrong with them.

If you can't see what's wrong with that, then no amount of talking about what Jesus taught or didn't teach on the subject is going to help you.

L.





L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
anglicanrascal:
Maybe I wasn't clear that I was asking from the perspective of those whose responsibility it is to raise such matters. If so, I apologise. Josephine, can I ask with your three pointers on how such a matter can be raised - if that would be different from a priest's situation, bearing in mind his responsibility before God, or would you prefer not to comment on something like that?

I was tonight, at one of the local Sydney outposts (I know it will make your heart glad, ar [Biased] ) and they did in fact raise the topic of homosexuals.

The reading was on the Syro-Phoenician woman (dogs get the crumbs under the table) and the theme of the homily was crossing barriers. The preacher rather bravely exhorted the congregation to be a welcoming church and to welcome (a list of sinners including "abortionists" and) homosexuals. Because that is what Jesus did and because we all of us equally fall short of God's grace; and all equally are undeserving of it - but he gives it to us anyway.

I ruminated on this for a while: 'What will they do once they get a swarm of happy homos lured in by promises of acceptance and unconditional love?'

(Ironically we chose that church after we decided we were running too late to go to the local homo corral church)

Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery 'Go and sin no more' and that was life changing for her. Not being Jesus, if you say that to someone, it prolly won't have the same effect.

Now our Jesus, being the living God, is still around today, and still talks to people in prayer and through the Spirit. So, I suppose our conservative church-goers could just get on with the business of loving (gay people never learn, Charlie Brown) and accepting (kick the footy, Charlie Brown) the gay person, while waiting for our Living God to let the gay person know what they should be doing - because Jesus is good at that sort of thing.

If the Spirit can lead a Hindu bloke who has never even heard of Jesus to Him, then I'm sure the Spirit can make known Jesus' desires for the life of the gay person who seeks Him.

So, when your conservative church is swamped by gay people (it will all end in tears, Charlie Brown), you could get on with the business of loving and accepting them and wait for God to let you know how he wants you to convict them of their sin (He may even say not to worry about it, because he has the matter under control).

Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PS. If someone is hurting themselves (not talking about sex of partner) but sleeping around self-destructively, of course you would be saying something to them - I would expect that no matter what the person's sexuality.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Luke, you may have missed this in my earlier post:
quote:
If you want to start from the a priori position that homosexuality is sinful, and then ask, "Given that, what is the best way to love homosexual people," I'm willing to have that discussion. I'll concede, for the sake of the discussion, that homosexuality is sinful. Now, given that, what is the best way to love homosexual people?

Tell me that, then tell me the best way to love fornicators, and the best way to love gluttons. Are you willing to do that? Do you think quoting Leviticus at people you barely know is the best way to love them? Or is there something else you think would be more appropriate?

If you wish I’ll debate either position. If we start with the a priori
position that homosexual relationships are sinful then I’m willing to debate that. I wasn’t seeking a debate about how best to love those in a homosexual relationship but in the spirit of reconciliation I’ll seek to discuss that too.

But why is quoting Leviticus at people you barely know any better or worse then quoting anything at people you barely know? I’m little hot under the feathers when I write this so take it with a grain of salt but how is your approach more appropriate then mine?



Louise said:
quote:
Yet I observe the phenomenon that every few months somebody new comes on board and starts on the theme of paedophilia/bestiality/incest in a discussion on a thread about gay relationships.
It's not very clear what this thread is about.

quote:
Like Arabella, it is something which has worn my patience thin to the point of snapping, which probably was evident in my previous reply to you.
Thank you for your continued replies but please don’t judge me for my questions and counter arguments.

quote:
I see it like this: people come here, onto a board where it's rapidly obvious that there are a number of gay people who are part of the community, and they think it's OK to start debating their relationships in terms of raping children or fucking animals. To me it's like watching someone walk into a party with a number of black guests and start loudly talking about 'niggers' and what's wrong with them.
I guess you’ve felt that I’ve insulted you and now you have insulted me by implying I’m a racist. Is that what happens on this thread when someone debates homosexual relationships that they get labelled a racist.

quote:
If you can't see what's wrong with that, then no amount of talking about what Jesus taught or didn't teach on the subject is going to help you.
But that’s the heart of my question; understanding and debating what Jesus taught or didn’t teach. It’s your decision to disrespectfully disregard my questions.

I’ve had insulting and harsh things said to me so far but if I have been harsh or insulting I’m sorry, I do not seek to hurt anyone who is homosexual on this board. I originally sought only to understand what the historical church tradition regarding homosexual relationships was and to debate what Jesus said or didn’t say about homosexual relationships. I admit I was drawn to respond to comments or claims made by other people abut side topics but only in the spirit of debate.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059

 - Posted      Profile for ananke   Email ananke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
What did I equate with rape and abuse?

You equated a loving relationship between two adults with an adult raping a child, an adult raping an animal and siblings having sex.

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Some of the ages of consent around the world will shock you. Culturally the sexualisation of children is becoming more acceptable. See for example this movie.

What's your point here? That some people have legalised the rape of children? You really aren't helping your case here. It doesn't shock me because it is something I work against - sex with a person unable to consent or unconsenting is NEVER EVER RIGHT. No bible verse, no sophistry will convince me of that.


quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
But how do we know that, some of them might be more loving then a homosexual or heterosexual relationship?

They might be - I wouldn't know. However the bulk of interfamilial sexual activity is non-consensual or rooted in some seriously bad issues. Not to mention the fairly pressing scientific reasons against it.

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Doesn’t Leviticus lump all these types of sexual combinations together? Why do we have to make a special distinction between homosexual relationships and these other relationships if Leviticus doesn’t?

Because I'm smarter. Because I'm living in an age where I don't need to have fourteen kids to ensure some survive. Because we don't need every single adult hand working the land so we may survive. Because we have moved on thanks to the redemption Jesus Christ gave us including the verses Josephine (?) quoted.

Funny how those of us taking Christ's words are talking love whereas you, Luke, are talking the damnation and desecration of souls. Tell me, do you enquire of every woman the status of their menstrual cycle to ensure your food is 'pure'. The concept of purity contrasts ever so strongly with Crhsit's love. I'll take love over some out-of-date obsession with genitalia and washing.

--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.

A Perfect Circle - Magdalena

Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I see it like this: people come here, onto a board where it's rapidly obvious that there are a number of gay people who are part of the community, and they think it's OK to start debating their relationships in terms of raping children or fucking animals. To me it's like watching someone walk into a party with a number of black guests and start loudly talking about 'niggers' and what's wrong with them.
quote:
I guess you’ve felt that I’ve insulted you and now you have insulted me by implying I’m a racist. Is that what happens on this thread when someone debates homosexual relationships that they get labelled a racist.
No you haven't insulted me, you've insulted other people and you still don't get it, what you are posting is the equivalent towards gay people of how racists talk to black people, you're talking about them in terms which show utter contempt for them as human beings and a complete lack of understanding of what life is like for them. I don't know if you've read this thread through but if you do you'll find many of the points you raise have been raised and answered before.

Would you like to have people continually discussing your family/marriage in terms of bestiality, paedophilia or incest? No? Then don't do it to others. Note how upset you got when I discussed your behaviour in the context of racism, yet you were happily in your previous posts discussing the relationships of people like Arabella in the context of incest, paedophila and bestiality. Don't do unto others what you don't like having done to yourself.

L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
Luke, you may have missed this in my earlier post:
quote:
If you want to start from the a priori position that homosexuality is sinful, and then ask, "Given that, what is the best way to love homosexual people," I'm willing to have that discussion. I'll concede, for the sake of the discussion, that homosexuality is sinful. Now, given that, what is the best way to love homosexual people?

Tell me that, then tell me the best way to love fornicators, and the best way to love gluttons. Are you willing to do that? Do you think quoting Leviticus at people you barely know is the best way to love them? Or is there something else you think would be more appropriate?

If you wish I’ll debate either position. If we start with the a priori
position that homosexual relationships are sinful then I’m willing to debate that. I wasn’t seeking a debate about how best to love those in a homosexual relationship but in the spirit of reconciliation I’ll seek to discuss that too.

It seemed to me that, when you were told that gay and lesbian people should be treated with love, you responded by saying that preventing them from sinning was in fact the loving thing to do, and implied that homosexual relations are necessarily sinful. Did I misunderstand you? If so, I'm sorry. If not, perhaps instead of saying that you're willing to answer the question, you'd go ahead and answer it.

quote:
But why is quoting Leviticus at people you barely know any better or worse then quoting anything at people you barely know?
In general, I'd say that quoting anything from the Bible at people you barely know is an appropriate behavior only if you are, say, at a Bible Bowl competition. But it is particularly inappropriate if you are quoting verses in order to let them know that you disapprove of them, and making it clear that, in this disagreement, God is on your side.

quote:
I’m little hot under the feathers when I write this so take it with a grain of salt but how is your approach more appropriate then mine?
What, exactly, is your approach? I've just skimmed back through the last few pages, and I'm not exactly clear on what you think is the best approach for loving and serving gay and lesbian people. If you'll provide that information, I'll be able to decide whether I think my approach is more appropriate than yours, or whether yours is more appropriate, and why. But I can't do that until you've told me what your approach is.

And, as I said before, I'd appreciate it if you would explain whether you'd use the same approach with gluttons or gossips or adulterers that you would use with gays and lesbians. If not, what would you do differently in your encounters with those sinners, and why?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you, Arabella and Josephine.
[Overused]
OliviaG
ETA: oooh! and Louise!

[ 26. September 2005, 17:35: Message edited by: OliviaG ]

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
You equated a loving relationship between two adults with an adult raping a child,

Here you are definitely misrepresenting Luke's viewpoint. Incest is quite possible between two consenting and loving adult siblings without any implication of rape or abuse. It can even be procreative in a way that homosexuality will never be. But is such an incestuous relationship moral or not?

quote:
Funny how those of us taking Christ's words are talking love whereas you, Luke, are talking the damnation and desecration of souls. Tell me, do you enquire of every woman the status of their menstrual cycle to ensure your food is 'pure'. The concept of purity contrasts ever so strongly with Christ's love. I'll take love over some out-of-date obsession with genitalia and washing.
I suggest you familarise yourself with what Christ actually said on this subject before putting words into Luke's mouth to misrepresent his position. It is completely incorrect to assert that Christ did not say one word about homosexuality - he did.

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
sorry about the length of the post but I’ve grouped my respones by person....

here is the offending quote.
quote:
Kate, the problem with the argument “as long as the relationship is loving it’s OK” is that this can be applied to any relationship combination. Leviticus bans a number of different sexual combinations. Not only are homosexual relationships banned but human/animal and incestual relationships are also banned. But what if these relationships were loving as well, are they OK then? Jesus doesn’t condemn bestiality, incest or pedophilia.
to which i think Louise is referring to...
quote:
Would you like to have people continually discussing your family/marriage in terms of bestiality, paedophilia or incest? No? Then don't do it to others.
But this illustrates the fundamental difference in our argument your starting from the point of view that homosexual relationships are a non-sinful and I’m arguing they are sinful. If you believe that and I my thing then of course we are going to keep offending each other.

I didn’t group these sexual sins like this, the author of Leviticus did and I can’t apologise for that or for making that point. However I am sorry to insinuate that anybody engages in any of the above sexual practices. That was not my intention and I am sorry for that!

quote:
Note how upset you got when I discussed your behaviour in the context of racism, yet you were happily in your previous posts discussing the relationships of people like Arabella in the context of incest, paedophila and bestiality.
Well, Ok I’m sorry for implying you were anyone of those things, so you may continue with the racist thing, I’ll try to develop a thicker skin

quote:
Don't do unto others what you don't like having done to yourself.
That's also a fair comment.

ananke says
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
What did I equate with rape and abuse?

You equated a loving relationship between two adults with an adult raping a child, an adult raping an animal and siblings having sex.

Do you mean the my quote from earlier in the thread?

quote:
Funny how those of us taking Christ's words are talking love whereas you, Luke, are talking the damnation and desecration of souls.
It’s ironic that for all your talk of love ananke, you adopt quite an unloving tone.

josephine says
quote:
It seemed to me that, when you were told that gay and lesbian people should be treated with love, you responded by saying that preventing them from sinning was in fact the loving thing to do, and implied that homosexual relations are necessarily sinful. Did I misunderstand you?
No thats what I meant. While implying nothing about anybody here I beleive that homosexual relationships are a sin and part of being loving is to try and help somone in that situation stop sinning.

quote:
If not, perhaps instead of saying that you're willing to answer the question, you'd go ahead and answer it.
In real life my approach is to explain why I think homosexual relationships are a sin, be nice and keep relating like a human being. It does of course depend on my relationship to that person and of course assumes they are a Christian. At the end of the day what someone does with their sin is between themeslves and God. Have I done so on this board, I think so, I assume given the nature of the site most are Christians and I hope I’ve said things nicely, even if the’ve been arguments you have hated. Forums are strange places because its hard to know people as you would in real life and yet we debate topics that we would only reserve for dicussions with people we know well in real life. When I oringally saw the thread I though it was a place for people to debate the rightness or wrongness of homosexual relationships.

quote:
quote:
But why is quoting Leviticus at people you barely know any better or worse then quoting anything at people you barely know?
In general, I'd say that quoting anything from the Bible at people you barely know is an appropriate behavior only if you are, say, at a Bible Bowl competition. But it is particularly inappropriate if you are quoting verses in order to let them know that you disapprove of them, and making it clear that, in this disagreement, God is on your side.

LOL at the Bible Bowl comp comment, I think its appropriate to quote the Bible or paraphrase the Bible in all contexts and where did I say God is on my side? (Do we know whose side God is on?)

quote:
If not, what would you do differently in your encounters with those sinners, and why?
Yes, I’d use the approach outlined above.


Any advances on my original two questions?

quote:

1. Where is the overall Biblical pattern of homosexuality in the Bible?

2. Where apart from the so called gay rite of adelphopoiia is the evidence of acceptance by the church tradition?



--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
sorry about the length of the post but I’ve grouped my respones by person....

here is the offending quote.
quote:
Kate, the problem with the argument “as long as the relationship is loving it’s OK” is that this can be applied to any relationship combination. Leviticus bans a number of different sexual combinations. Not only are homosexual relationships banned but human/animal and incestual relationships are also banned. But what if these relationships were loving as well, are they OK then? Jesus doesn’t condemn bestiality, incest or pedophilia.
to which i think Louise is referring to...
quote:
Would you like to have people continually discussing your family/marriage in terms of bestiality, paedophilia or incest? No? Then don't do it to others.
But this illustrates the fundamental difference in our argument your starting from the point of view that homosexual relationships are a non-sinful and I’m arguing they are sinful. If you believe that and I my thing then of course we are going to keep offending each other.

I didn’t group these sexual sins like this, the author of Leviticus did and I can’t apologise for that or for making that point. However I am sorry to insinuate that anybody engages in any of the above sexual practices. That was not my intention and I am sorry for that!


Nope, you can start from the premise that something is sinful and argue in constructive ways which aren't treating other people like dirt. (Josephine's posts spring to mind as excellent examples - but here's my take on it)

To take some examples. Suppose I chose to discuss my doctrinal differences with Catholics in the traditional scriptural language of my Calvinist forefathers: by having lavish recourse to the Book of Revelation and talking about their church being the whore of Babylon, the Pope being Antichrist, mass being a sinful abomination and perhaps chucking in a bit of Ezekiel on the whore theme, about playing the harlot in Egypt and having lovers " whose members were like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses.". It's all perfectly scriptural, of course, and much of it authorised by the Westminster Confession. Yet I think they would have some reason to tell me where to stick my Bible and The Confession after it.

I don't agree with some of the most central tenets of Catholicism but I do manage (usually) to discuss that without choosing to resort to my thorough study of highly-offensive Reformation polemic.

Now the author of Leviticus never mentioned paedophilia. You did. You chose to go for just about the most offensive thing you could mention. You chose to discuss loving consenting gay relationships in the context of bestiality, incest and paedophilia. You chose to quote Leviticus. Those were all your choices.

You could just as easily have written that many relationships outside marriage are consenting and loving, but because you hold a certain view of scripture, you see them as sinful and marriage as the only appropriate place for sexual expression. But no, you had to bring up sex with animals, abusing children and incest as your examples!

That's a bit as if I decided that the way to treat my Catholic brethren in debate was to start up on the old Whore of Babylon stuff. Why choose extraordinarily offensive ways of talking about doctrinal differences (what's a sin /what isn't) when there is no need and you can make your point quite adequately in other ways?

L.

PS.
quote:

1. Where is the overall Biblical pattern of homosexuality in the Bible?

2. Where apart from the so called gay rite of adelphopoiia is the evidence of acceptance by the church tradition?

These sort of issues, especially the first one have been raised and discussed on this thread in various places - there is about 52 pages of it. Have a read. I'm sure you'll find plenty to chew on.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
In real life my approach is to explain why I think homosexual relationships are a sin, be nice and keep relating like a human being. It does of course depend on my relationship to that person and of course assumes they are a Christian.



Can you be more specific, please? You say it depends on your relationship with the person. Can you be more specific?

Let's say the man who works three desks over from you at work is gay, or that the dog groomer at the vet clinic where you take your beloved Fido is lesbian. You see these people regularly; they know you by name, you know them by name, but they're casual acquaintances, not friends. How do you go about explaining to them that homosexual relationships are sinful?

What if it's your aunt? Your best friend from childhood? The brand-new barrista at Starbucks?

quote:
LOL at the Bible Bowl comp comment, I think its appropriate to quote the Bible or paraphrase the Bible in all contexts and where did I say God is on my side? (Do we know whose side God is on?)
Let's say that I have a perfectly abysmal driving record, and you have a very nice, brand new car. And let's say I ask you if I can borrow your car for a week. You could do without it for the week, but knowing my driving record, you decide you'd rather not. So you very kindly tell me so. And I tell you that you really should lend it to me, because it says right here in the Bible that you should lend to anyone who asks of you. Do you really think that's appropriate? I don't. I think it's inappropriate precisely because it implies that, if you don't do what I'm saying you should do, you're disobeying God. It's making an implicit claim that, in our disagreement, I'm right and you're wrong, because God is on my side -- it says so in the Bible.

quote:
If not, what would you do differently in your encounters with those sinners, and why?[QUOTE]Yes, I’d use the approach outlined above.


But I'm still not clear about what you'd do, since you included an "it depends" in your answer.

Let's say you're at your grandmother's house for Thanksgiving dinner, and everyone at the table is eating and drinking to excess. Do you talk to their gluttony? What if it's a co-worker who is extremely fat, and eats a bag of potato chips, three candy bars, and a 2-liter bottle of soda with his lunch every day? Or what if the person in front of you at the concession stand at the cinema buys the Super Deluxe Ginormous Popcorn and Nacho Combo with a swimming-pool sized softdrink? What, if anything, do you say to that person?

Or let's say your co-worker is living with a man she's not married to. They've been living together 20 years, have bought a house together, but have never bothered to get married. Do you talk to her about her fornication, making sure she understands what the Bible says, and then go on being nice to her and relating like a human being? If it's your sibling who's just started college and is sleeping with his girlfriend on a regular basis? What do you say to him?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The co-worker who is gay and the aunt who is a glutton issue.

Well I think unless they were fellow Christians its not my place to make a comment. Remember that I’m not upset at people being gay, check my comments to confirm that. Its probably good if you know of a Christian who is sinning to approach them carefully asking lots of questions. I also weigh up how well I know them and consider the fact someone else might already be talking to them about it. If they knew they were sinning then I would ask if there was something I could to help them out and if they thought what they were doing wasn’t a sin I’d debate with them or direct them towards a more helpful person or book. What they do with it though is between them and God. After that I should keep chatting to them and invite them to examine my own life because I might be committing a sin that I haven't noticed.

The Leviticus issue;

I’m reluctant to apologise for the way Leviticus groups sexual sin. The accusation is that I can choose which part of Leviticus I want to refer to. To that charge I’m sorry. While I believe a loving caring homosexual relationship is still a sin I don’t want to unduly provoke people by the parts of Leviticus I refer to. Although if I refer to adultery there might be people on the board who are in a loving and caring adulterous relationship and are offended by that as well. However in the interests of not getting bogged down on this point I’ll use adultery as my example. So the question would stand as why are homosexual relationships OK and adultery wrong?

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Adultery is wrong because one or both of those involved is already married to someone else. If you mean by adultery, two otherwise unmarried people living together, it may or may not be wrong -- I have thought for some decades that just as the state recognizes a long-term, implicitly monogamous, relationship as effectively a marriage, so christians ought to recognise that there are many ways to get married in God's eyes -- not all of them require marriage on the state's terms, and not all of them demand the involvement of the church in any of its manifestations.

I would suggest that as gay relationships in biblical times were almost without exception either exploitive or a form of fertility worship, and as it was assumed that all gay sex was being done by heterosexuals, the prohibitions in scripture make some sense. But we know now that you can actually be gay, not straight (speaking of the orientation, not any activities), and that largely this is outside the control of the person involved. And the kind of gay relationships we are discussing -- monogamous, faithful, life-long by people who are not heterosexual -- are relationships unknown to the writers of scripture and, in my opinion, not covered by what they wrote. Leaving us to fall back on the general disposion of scripture and the Lord in favour of what is loving, supportive and faithful. Not to mention that many gay married couples -- certainly those I know -- are better witnesses to christian marriage than those of many heterosexaul couples I know. And at least some show forth the fruits of the spirit Paul talked about -- love, joy, peace and so on. I find it impossible to conclude that Leviticus and even Paul, both talking about something else, trump the clear evidence I have seen that such relationships are in accordance with God's will.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Welease Woderwick

Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424

 - Posted      Profile for Welease Woderwick   Email Welease Woderwick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've not read the whole thread, I don't intend to try. Most of the comments seem to me to be coming from entrenched positions with no attempt to see the point of view of the other, 'twas ever thus! I ally myself firmly on one side.

The Bible has been used to justify apartheid so that it is used also to justify homophobia is really no surprise. Perhaps more enlightened days are ahead but those that wish to judge and condemn will be with us always.

I am an openly gay man at peace with my God. Some people see me as the devil incarnate some don't. That really is okay. I try to seek "that of God in everyone" as George Fox enjoined us - but sometimes it is so hard to find!

I take comfort from Lynn Lavner's comment:

quote:
The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision.
[Angel]

--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details

What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?

Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This thread seems out of control. 52 pages is alot to read through so I skimmed alot to see if there were any answers to my original two questions.

I found some debate about church tradition and homosexual relationships around page 38. I noticed you Louise, were posting back then, was there anything I’ve overlooked concerning historical evidence?

ChristinaMarie, said towards the end of page 46 an interesting sentence that encapsulates both of my questions...
quote:
Also, same-sex covenanted unions (not for sexual purposes) are part of Tradition. There is a recognition of such partnerships, based on David and Jonathan, within Tradition.
but offered no evidence or explanation

If anyone thinks I should be directed towards some specific pages please do so, I had to skim alot. I think given the sheer size of this thread it should be broken into the various common themes that keep recurring.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

Sorry people - I haven't been paying close enough attention to this thread.

Luke - you will already have realised that your apparent linking of homosexuality to
quote:
bestiality/paedophilia/incest
has upset several people. This has always been a bit of a 'no-no' on these Boards - even in Hell. Having re-read carefully your original reference, I am inclined to agree that you are simply picking up references from Leviticus, but it was done in a manner which was likely to cause offence.

I therefore request that you drop this particular aspect of your argument - as you have already started doing.

Ananke, Louise and others - could I request that you accept that your point has been made, and let the discussion move on.

My apologies to all posters for not picking this up sooner.

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
The co-worker who is gay and the aunt who is a glutton issue.

Well I think unless they were fellow Christians its not my place to make a comment.

Your approach, then, with unbelievers who are gluttons, fornicators, or homosexuals is to keep your mouth shut? That's a good start.

But what if your coworker and your aunt were Christians, you would think it your place to comment? Why?

Serious question. I don't assume that I am the spiritual director of other people, or that I am responsible for giving them guidance on how to live their life, unless we have a particular relationship that gives me that responsibility. That is, I have not only the right but the duty to my children, my godchildren, my godchildren's parents (insofar as their choices have an effect on my godchildren) to attempt to influence their moral choices. But my co-workers? My aunts and uncles? It's simply not my place to comment on their choices, unless they ask my opinion.

quote:
Its probably good if you know of a Christian who is sinning to approach them carefully asking lots of questions.
St. Paul warned in the strongest possible terms against allowing people to be busybodies. As a result, for your own spiritual welfare, for the sake of your soul, if you approached me, asking lots of questions about my sex life, or my eating habits, or the way I spend my money, my response would be to tell you, quite firmly, to mind your own business. You are not my father, my husband, my confessor, or my spiritual director. For you to pry into oher people's affairs is unseemly, and brings our Lord and his Church into disrepute.

There's a limit to "mind your own business," of course. If you had reason to believe your co-worker was beating his wife, or that your aunt had locked her children into an attic and was refusing to give them food or water, you'd have to do something. But short of that, being a busybody is something that is clearly condemned in the New Testament, and something that you should therefore avoid.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
St. Paul warned in the strongest possible terms against allowing people to be busybodies. As a result, for your own spiritual welfare, for the sake of your soul, if you approached me, asking lots of questions about my sex life, or my eating habits, or the way I spend my money, my response would be to tell you, quite firmly, to mind your own business. You are not my father, my husband, my confessor, or my spiritual director. For you to pry into oher people's affairs is unseemly, and brings our Lord and his Church into disrepute.


(joyous happy dance)

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  ...  92  93  94 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools